Rexer's etal: this is a rather long post. I read some comments re: Fair Use, in an earlier thread, and thought that this info might be helpful for others. Sorry for the length, but remember that the Copyright Laws fill several volumes. This is NOT a simple subject::: Here is the Fair Use Doctrine, extracted from the many pages - make that volumes - of "THE Copyright Laws"-- ==== The Fair Use Doctrine (Section 107): Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords(!) or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include- 1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2) The nature of the copyrighted work; 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. ==== Notice that Weddings, "Personal videos", etc. don't quite fit into these permissible categories... Here is what CAN be used/copied/extracted: 1. Creations in the Public Domain; 2. Ideas; 3. Facts; 4. SMALL PARTS of existing images; 5. Images that merge a concept with an execution; 6. Images that fall under Fair Use exemptions; Seems pretty broad in some cases, but remember that there are quite a few MORE words (in the Copyright Laws OTHER clauses) that define the above items. Examples: 1. Public Domain creations: More than 50 years old, except works owned by an institution (museum, estate, etc). Example - "Happy Birthday" - it is NOT PD, and you DO have to pay royalties for it's use....IF you use another's performance of the song. So, if the kid's singing that song are singing to music from a recording, you owe royalties. If they are just singing (without musical accompaniment), you are on pretty safe Copyright ground. If you, or the kid's Mom, plays HB on the piano while the kid's sing, - you owe..... 2. Ideas: Copyright protects 'expression' of ideas, NOT ideas. i.e., your 'idea' for that killer transition is NOT copyrightable, but the finished transition sequence, and the content (clips, etc.)IS. If this seems vague, remember that there are a lot of Lawyers who live from Copyright work. Defining and separating the idea from the execution and content, and convincing the court that their definition is correct, can be an expensive, drawn out process - and it is happening every day. 3. Facts: FACTS are not copyrightable, but certain arrangements or interpretations ARE. In your documentary, you can provide every fact that 20/20 did, but NOT in the same way that they did, unless you can clearly prove that there is NO OTHER WAY to clearly present those facts. 4. Small parts of existing images: You have to be VERY careful here - the De Minimis Doctrine allows for copying "very small or insignificant portions....of existing works". What is "insignificant"?? That's why there are Copyright courts - and Copyright Lawsuits. If the copy is of the "essence" of the document, copyright is violated. Who determines "essence"? - The author, and the Courts, usually..... Don't think that this clause is your "OUT" for that "little bit of music" you used....... You may be able to use the Mona Lisa's eyes, or hands, but her smile is off limits without permission - since "common knowledge" is that the smile is what makes the painting. COREL has had a huge amount of problem with the Hedi Lamar graphic that has become their symbol for Corel Draw. Lamar's family charged that there was a clear violation, due to recognizability, as well as commercial use and other points. Corel still uses the image, but now they PAY for it..... 5. Images that....execution: This is the Merger Doctrine, and allows "copying when concept and execution are inextricably linked". A prime example is a crossfade. The concept and execution of a crossfade cannot be separated, so ANY crossfade MUST use them, therefore a crossfade cannot be copyrighted. However, the CONTENT of a crossfade (the video clips, stills, etc.) is for sure protected.... 6. Images that fall under the Fair Use Doctrine: Too complex for a short discussion. Be aware that Fair Use infringement is almost ALWAYS decided in court, by a jury, and if you streeeeeetch the meaning of Fair Use, you could be facing a long court battle. But Fair Use does NOT extend to the situations posted in the earlier thread that prompted this post. Using a favorite song from the customers copy of a CD is copyright violation, no matter HOW small or large the intended audience is. Unless you are making a video for classroom ONLY use, for satire, parody, or editorial commentary. NOT for a "single copy" that does NOT fit neatly into the allowed categories as defined by Article 107. Use any part of a copyrighted item for anything other than those categories, and you can end up in court. An interesting and important point - suppose you produce a music video for a local band. You MUST get copyright clearance from that band, even though they contracted you to create the video! Or you produce a 30 second spot for a Shopping Center. If you use their "jingle" in the production, you must also have Copyright Clearance from the Center - and possibly from the original creator/performer, if THEY hold Copyright or partial Copyright on the material. Stamping "DEMO" or any other disclaimer on your video does NOT allow you to use any copyright material, either, except as defined in Section 107, or with clearance. The song or video or still photo you used is STILL copyrighted, and DEMO, to the courts, strongly suggests Commercial Use - not allowed. More than one person that I know has the attitude that "This is a small production, who will ever know?" In Las Vegas, that is called gambling, and the odds are NOT in the players favor. Who knows where your private or demo video will be played, who will be there, who will get a copy AFTER you are paid and on to other projects? Wishful thinking can end up being very expensive..... And there is no real "Statute of Limitations" re: Copyright violation. So long as any copy of the work (or proof that it exists/existed) containing the violation exists, the "copier" may be liable. An "Innocent" use of borrowed music can come back to haunt you - 20 years later. This is such a complex topic - just look at the number of Articles and Clauses in the Copyright Law, then look at the number of Copyright Infringment cases, and draw your own conclusions about how an "innocent" use of media can turn into a "criminal" use - and how that can impact your business and your life....... At times, this can seem very unfair and limiting. Then again - how would you feel, and react, if you found one of YOUR songs or video clips in someone ELSE'S production - and had not been paid for or informed of the use?? I hope this info is of some interest to you, and that none of you ever wind up in Copyright Court. Included is information for the best book I have found on the subject of Copyright Law for the Film (and Video)industry. "Clearance & Copyright-Everythng the Independent Filmmaker Needs to Know"-Michael C. Donaldson-Silman-James Press $26.95 ISBN: 1-879505-30-4 Got mine at Borders - Amazon also has it - of course :-) Mike Herberth the Pancreative Group